My stance on the death penalty...

ThumbingMyWay32

soulsinging wrote:

do you not read? do you have any idea how much it costs to execute somebody? after the extensive appeals process, multiple trials, courts costs, fees, judicial reviews... read prism's post. i know reading is hard for you. but try it just once. it costs a LOT more to execute somebody than it does to jail them for life. a LOT. from the end of the trial to the time of execution can take a decade or more in many cases. that's 10 years of filing appeals, motions, etc, you paying for the defendant's attorney and the prosecutor, the judge, court reporter, funding the defendant's inane studies to "prove" they couldn't have done it. it costs a fortune.

you are an idiot. an uneducated one at that. and you've lost your right to debate any topic that requires intelligence or basic reading comprehension.

That's pure liberal non-sense. Sure, that's obviously the case if you're including cost the taxpayer burdens paying the salaries of the judges, prosecutors, public defenders, court officials for 'abnormaly long cases' inwhich the death penalty is being persued. The justice process has nothing to do with housing a criminal for life nor does it have anything to do with the cost of putting one to death after conviction. Once that part of any case is over, the remaining cost to house a criminal behind bars far outweighs that of someone put to death.

lol An idiot. Thanks. Always with the name-calling.

soulsinging

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

That's pure liberal non-sense. Sure, that's obviously the case if you're including cost the taxpayer burdens paying the salaries of the judges, prosecutors, public defenders, court officials for abnormaly long cases inwhich the death penalty is being persued. The justice process has nothing to do with housing a criminal for life nor does it have anything to do with the cost of putting one to death after conviction. Once that part of any case is over, the remaining cost to house a criminal behind bars far outweighs that of someone put to death.

lol An idiot. Thanks. Always with the name-calling.

you have studies for this? what am i thinking, of course not. you dont let facts get in the way of your views... you've got your beliefs and no amount of reality can shake that...

you cannot separate the cost of appeal from the cost of imprisonment. it's hundreds of man hours. it means we have to hire more judges and prosecutors... two when we could just have one. you have cops who, instead of protecting us, are being paid to testify and defend every minutae of their evidence collection. that's less men on the streets and more tied u in bureacracy. you have public defenders spending ten years defending scumbags... meaning another public defender has to be hired to take on the other cases. this whole time you're paying to jail this guy. you're adding to the cost of jailing by having to constntly shuttle him back and forth to court, which is not cheap and a drain on manpower (it takes 2 guards out of the prison to transport one prisoner to court). it's an expensive process.

are you telling me, as a fiscal conservative, you'd rather spend twice as much of the taxpayer's dollars trying to execute someone than just lock them up for a fraction of the price? YOU'RE not allowed to claim to be fiscally conservative.

Uncle Leo

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

I'm more of an eye for an eye kind of person.

If you take someone's life, in my opinion, you default on your own life.

Since most liberals don't believe in God I would think they would have no sense of understanding that the judicial system may be playing God. Factually it wouldn't make sense. That may not make sense to some of you, but it does to me.

First off most liberals DO believe in God. I don't (maybe maybe no) but most do.

Second I agree 100% with eye for an eye. One who kills in cold blood deserves death. I stray from my fellow-libs on that.

HOWEVER, I am against the death penalty for one reason: Going eye for eye on the biggest scumbags on the earth is not worth killing one innocent person. Fear of killing an innocent person is a good enough reason for me to be against it. I am sure it's a tough pill to swallow to be let out of prison after 10 years for a crime you did not commit, but it beats being executed for it...

Uncle Leo

As for the costs, it is generally believed that by the time you put someone to death more money will be spent than paying for that person to live the rest of their life in prison.

Though there are conflicting views...

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7

http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost&menu=1%22

http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html

ThumbingMyWay32

I look at this issue purely post-conviction. And I mean post-conviction as in final word. 5 minutes is not more expensive than 50 years.

There is no price in obtaining justice in my opinion. Consequently I do not choose to lump those cost incurred during the court process into the equation.

And I certainly will not use it as a tool to defend abolishing the capital punishment.

soulsinging

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

I look at this issue purely post-conviction. And I mean post-conviction as in final word. 5 minutes is not more expensive than 50 years.

There is no price in obtaining justice in my opinion. Consequently I do not choose to lump those cost incurred during the court process into the equation.

And I certainly will not use it as a tool to defend abolishing the capital punishment.

that's ridiculous. you know when somebody is convicted? after the first trial. then there are years of appeals. this person is already convicted. do you understand anything about how the american justice system works?

ThumbingMyWay32

soulsinging wrote:

that's ridiculous. you know when somebody is convicted? after the first trial. then there are years of appeals. this person is already convicted. do you understand anything about how the american justice system works?

"Final word." As in no more appeals. Like? You know? Seperation of the court process and penalty serving process?

And again, I do not lump the court processes in with the penalty serving process when dealing with putting a criminal to death or paying for the housing of one. You're still not understanding me. I don't even care about the courts here.

A 3-drug mixture introduced into a syringe including sodium pentothal, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride does not equal the cost of 50 years of maintaining a criminal in the prison system.

hippiemom

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

"Final word." As in no more appeals. Like? You know? Seperation of the court process and penalty serving process?

And again, I do not lump the court processes in with the penalty serving process when dealing with putting a criminal to death or paying for the housing of one. You're still not understanding me. I don't even care about the courts here.

A 3-drug mixture introduced into a syringe including sodium pentothal, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride does not equal the cost of 50 years of maintaining a criminal in the prison system.

Are you a congressman? Your accounting methods lead me to believe that you just might be! That's what they do ... "Oh dear, this number is fucking everything up, what can we do? I know! We'll just take it out of the budget! It's separate, not a part of the budget, so it doesn't count! The numbers line up just swell now! Gee whiz, that was easy!"

You can count it or not count it, doesn't matter .... it's still money that is spent every time we execute someone.

ThumbingMyWay32

That money is spent reguardless of wether it is a capital case or not.

There is no question that the up front costs of the death penalty are significantly higher than for equivalent life term cases. But there's also no question that, over time, equivalent life term cases are much more expensive. It's as if you only wish to discuss the costs incurred during trials but completely ignore what it costs to house an inmate for a life term.

What matters ultimately is the sentencing process. That is a part of the justice cycle. You can not run from those cost.

hippiemom

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

That money is spent reguardless of wether it is a capital case or not.

Ok, so soulsinging was right ... you don't know how the justice system works.

ThumbingMyWay32

hippiemom wrote:

Ok, so soulsinging was right ... you don't know how the justice system works.

There is no question that the up front costs of the death penalty are significantly higher than for equivalent life term cases. But there's also no question that, over time, equivalent life term cases are much more expensive. It's as if you only wish to discuss the costs incurred during trials but completely ignore what it costs to house an inmate for a life term.

What matters ultimately is the sentencing process. That is a part of the justice cycle. You can not run from those cost.

ThumbingMyWay32

And are you both seriously trying to convince me that the appeals process only applies to those sentenced to death?

lgt

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

I'm more of an eye for an eye kind of person.

If you take someone's life, in my opinion, you default on your own life.

Since most liberals don't believe in God I would think they would have no sense of understanding that the judicial system may be playing God. Factually it wouldn't make sense. That may not make sense to some of you, but it does to me.

The eye for an eye view is from the Bible Old Testament.

You will be hard pressed to find Catholics, who base their beliefs on the Gospels, in favour of the death penalty, regardless of being liberal or conservative.

So, not all who believe in God share the same view on the death penalty.

As for the statement of the judicial system playing God, there's this little issue of the separation of state and church, something that emerged in the Middle Ages and some countries have resolved successfully. Others not so - and I am not just referring to Islamic states.

lgt

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

What's going to be hardest for me is not allowing my emotions to become involved

I agree. But that is why it is the state who in the name of the collectivity administers justice - and not revenge. That should guarantee impartiality and fair trial and sentencing.

As for death penalty being considered a fair punishment for taking life, I do find it hard to justify, not only on criminal (no deterrent) or financial, but especially on moral grounds. Not just because there could be a miscarriage of justice, but because even if the defendant is guilty then you/the state would basically put yourself on the same level whereby human life is not valued and does not count.

Byrnzie

Again, I recommend that anyone interested in this subject read Albert Camus essay 'Reflections on the Guillotine'. It really puts the subject into perspective. Unfortunately there's no online version.

lgt

Byrnzie wrote:

Again, I recommend that anyone interested in this subject read Albert Camus essay 'Reflections on the Guillotine'. It really puts the subject into perspective. Unfortunately there's no online version.

Another book recommendation, from the 1700s and the Enlightment period, is for Cesare Beccaria's "On crimes and punishments", which constitutes the basis for much of modern criminal law.

On death penalty specifically:
"He also stated about the death penalty that, " it seems to me absurd that the laws , which are an expression of the public will, which detest and punish homicide, should themselves commit it, and that to deter citizens from murder they order a public one" (Beccaria, pg. 50). Beccaira felt that the death penalty, while cruel and excessive, it also was an ineffective measure to reduce or punish crime."

Source: http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/beccaria.htm

Puck78

lgt wrote:

The eye for an eye view is from the Bible Old Testament.

it is not. It is from the Hammurabi code, that is older than the old testament. Hence, the "christians" that appeal to the eye for an eye concept, are even more wrong.

blueandwhite

Uncle Leo wrote:

HOWEVER, I am against the death penalty for one reason: Going eye for eye on the biggest scumbags on the earth is not worth killing one innocent person. Fear of killing an innocent person is a good enough reason for me to be against it. I am sure it's a tough pill to swallow to be let out of prison after 10 years for a crime you did not commit, but it beats being executed for it...

The best statement in this thread goes completely ignored.

Well said.

Honestly, I don't think anyone has a problem with seeing the most vile offenders put to death, but how can one honestly account for the execution of an innocent individua? Simply put, mistakes are made. With so many high-profile cases being so political, there will always be undue pressure on police, courts and governors to achieve a conviction. How can you rationalize executing those innocent individuals. Its not as if the death penalty serves as a deterant for would-be rapists or murderers.

Byrnzie

blueandwhite wrote:

Honestly, I don't think anyone has a problem with seeing the most vile offenders put to death

I do. I think that a pre-concieved, clinical snuffing out of a life by a so-called civilized society, under the banner of 'justice', is the most sick of all sick things in this world.

Puck78

blueandwhite wrote:

Honestly, I don't think anyone has a problem with seeing the most vile offenders put to death

I do as well